I looked for an existing FR thread on this one and didn't find one. There were a couple of threads from a year or so ago describing the original find but nothing on the more recent news. Researchers in 2005 broke a tyrannosaur bone in half to get it on a small helicopter which was all they had available and found soft tissue inside the bone including what looked like raw meet, blood vessels, and blood. More recently, collagen and proteins from this bone have been sequenced and turnout to be altogether similar to those of chickens. The tyrannosaur apparently was basically just a big chicken with sharp teeth. It would almost certainly taste like chicken.

There was a thread, but it didn’t thrive as it should have. The orioles, wrens, and robins in my garden wish they were bigger and with teeth. Hitchcock was right, they are just waiting for the right time.

Look, it used to be the godless Evolutionist conspirators who were arguing that no proteins could last for tens of millions of years (thereby demonstrating the incredible age of dinosaur fossil bones).

Er, yeah ~ there's no reason why soft tissues can't be preserved indefinitely (or at least for a very long time).

I have several cans of potted beef on my shelves. If civilization stopped today, and everybody was gone, it could still be there millions of years from now, or at least hidden in the rubble of what had been my home.

You do realize these are very special fossils. They don't find them every day.

Now, a question for you, how could you doubt God's capacity for marvelous leaps across time and space.

Here we've gone and joked about dinosaurs that "taste like chicken" for decades, and now we find out they probably do.

That's definitely a conversation with our Creator. It's kind of like Handel's Hallelujah Chorus ~ he took a piece of the Bible translated to English and made incredible music for it. No doubt God heard that music and in the ancient distant past made sure the inspired Word would ring true to the Chorus thousands of years in the future.

Even if they found live dinosaurs today, it wouldn't be the end of Macroevolution. There have already been discoveries of so-called 'living fossils' such as the colecanth (that could be heavily misspelled). Macroevolution doesn't need dinosaurs to have died off millions of years ago for it to work.

Plus, as Macroevolution is a religious-based model for the origins of life, Macroevolutionists will continue to believe in their 'creation myth' even if there are setbacks, as there have already been plenty.

32
posted on 07/22/2007 2:40:56 AM PDT
by Jedi Master Pikachu
( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)

This one almost has to be the final coffin nail. Creationists had been talking about soft tissue in dino bones for years and now you have the story in mainstream journals. They’re just stalling for time until they can devise some new anti-Christine belief system before they pull the plug.

False. You have posting this story (incorrectly) since it hit the news a couple of years ago. You have been corrected on many threads. You still haven't gotten things right. (Where's your "hamburger) picture?)

Creationists had been talking about soft tissue in dino bones for years and now you have the story in mainstream journals.

Citations? Any published literature about creationists and "soft tissue?"

Creationists have been talking about a lot of things; you can find the goofiest ideas on their websites. But they have been doing no scientific research. They are just trying to justify their beliefs with pseudo-scientific trappings.

Theyre just stalling for time until they can devise some new anti-Christine belief system before they pull the plug.

>> Stop telling those tall tells, I just read on another thread that nothing was over five thousand years old.

LOL<<

One of the keys to understanding is Psalm 90:4. By including all the bible instead of cherry picking a much more reasonable estimate is obtained. 15,340,500,000 years is the more reasonable bible based number.

The people who originally supported the 5,00 year estimate - were understandable. They lacked science, they lacked advanced math and knowledge of the dozen different disciplines that all independently date the earth to billions of years.

But these days when we can look down into the Grand Canyon and measure 2 billion years of history it is clear that those low numbers were horrifically inaccurate.

39
posted on 07/22/2007 10:34:21 AM PDT
by gondramB
(Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words)

So ... someone spent dozens of hours on their hands and knees uncovering this thing. They used soft-bristle brushes, puffs of their own breath, and the most delicate of low-impact hand tools to preserve the artifact while it was being excavated. They allowed no one near the item except highly trained staff so no damage would occur.

Then when it didn't fit in the chopper they smacked it over a nearby boulder to make the pieces shorter?

Kinda like me taking some scrap lumber to the landfill ...

Did that part seem unlikely to anyone else?

40
posted on 07/22/2007 10:12:11 PM PDT
by WireAndWood
(I want the Barbie twins to make me a sandwich.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.